| 1 |
On 25/11/16 15:54, Kent Fredric wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 06:41:20 +1100 |
| 3 |
> Michael Palimaka <kensington@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Example atom list from a bug with amd64, arm, and x86 in CC: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> =app-foo/bar-1.2.3 # will be stabilised on amd64, arm, and x86 |
| 8 |
>> =app-foo/baz-2.3.4 amd64 x86 # will be stabilised on only amd64 and x86 |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I was doing this in the past, but there's a reason I stopped: |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Bugzilla-enforced wordwrap ( at least, this is very strict on the bugzilla-email relay ) |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> =app-foo/bar-1.2.3 # will be stabilised on amd64, arm, and x86 |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Could become more like |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
>> =app-foo/bar-1.2.3 # will be stabilised on amd64, |
| 19 |
>> arm, and x86 |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> A literal example of an email I received for a bug I filed ( via an alias ) is attached. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> The example I give did not render poorly on bugzilla |
| 26 |
> ( https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=599550 ), but I suspect people |
| 27 |
> who do AT probably prefer their notification emails about needed AT not |
| 28 |
> to be useless. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Does it matter if it gets wrapped a bit strangely in an email? Nobody |
| 32 |
should be actioning a stabilisation request based on the contents of a |
| 33 |
bugmail, as it doesn't necessarily reflect the most up-to-date information. |
Archives